


"Most Loved of His Companions": The Heroic Masculine Bond in Star Wars and Homer's Iliad

by MissjuliaMiriam



Category: Original Work, Star Wars Prequel Trilogy, The Iliad - Homer
Genre: Academia, Archetypes, Male Friendship, Meta, Other, Platonic Relationships, Reception Studies
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2018-06-09
Updated: 2018-06-08
Packaged: 2019-05-19 23:59:06
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 3
Words: 6,460
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/14883743
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/MissjuliaMiriam/pseuds/MissjuliaMiriam
Summary: Written in fall 2017 for a class on the history and progression of the study of Western mythology, this is an academic paper comparing the relationship between Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi to that of Achilles and Patroclus. The point of the paper was to demonstrate how the former falls into an archetype created by the latter, as well as showing the central place that this relationship holds in the epic narrative. It turned into a kind of neat bit of fandom meta as well as being a fun piece of academic work, so I decided to post it!Please note that this IS an academic paper and reads like one, but I'm an undergraduate so it should hopefully be fairly accessible. There're footnotes in chapter 2 and a bibliography in chapter 3 for those who're interested.





	1. Body

**Author's Note:**

> I'm pretty proud of this paper. For the record, I got an A. But I'm also... never going to publish this formally, lmao, because it's 6.5k of fandom meta. That said, I did have a LOT of thoughts about this particular literary comparison (that is, SW Prequels-Iliad) that might yet birth more meta. If so, I'll probably post it here as well!
> 
> I know this isn't my usual thing and also sort of a bizarre thing to post on AO3 in general and for that I apologize to any author subscribers I might have. But, uh, I hope anyone who reads it finds it interesting? Good luck? And if you do enjoy and want to talk to me about it, please do leave a comment! I welcome questions about the material, my sources, my analysis, whatever. Or just to discuss further!
> 
> This paper was written assuming its audience knew the Iliad better than Star Wars, but I think it explains both things well enough that it's readable no matter where you're coming from. If not, hit me up! I will attempt to clarify. Also, the paper brushes over the homoromantic/homosexual subtext often read into both of these relationships because that wasn't really the point of the paper. It's definitely a thing to talk about (I could write a whole other paper on the Star Wars fandom's shipping of Master/Padawan relationships and parallels to the Greek pederastic tradition...) but it's not what I'm talking about here.
> 
> Anyway, enjoy!

An entire volume – probably several volumes – could be written discussing the parallels between the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy and the Homeric epics, especially the Iliad. There are many angles to take on the subject from thematic analysis, to parallel motifs, to sociocultural significance. The Iliad, after all, has been received over and over in the western tradition beginning from its original composition right up to the present day, reproduced in theme and subject matter very directly at times, **1** as well as indirectly; it is a very present part of western cultural consciousness. There are also volumes to write about the significance of the bond between the mythical hero and his closest companion, and it is a fact that some of those have been written in the course of analysis of the western mythical tradition by theorists. The hero myth is well-travelled ground in theory of myth, especially in the last hundred or hundred and fifty years. What has not yet been written, however, and what I am setting out to write is a detailed analysis which combines those two things. The Star Wars Prequels, especially Revenge of the Sith, the third film and the one to which I will be making the most reference, make interesting and poignant use of the heroic masculine bond (or hero-companion relationship; I will use the terms fairly interchangeably hereafter). This relationship holds a central position in the heroic narrative, particularly epic and tragic heroic narratives and those that combine the two, such as the Iliad and Star Wars, and it has an established archetype. Archetype I here define as a recognizable pattern of traits or features that recurs throughout the mythical tradition with some minor variation. The hero-companion relationship as exemplified by Achilles and Patroclus is one such archetype, and it is an archetype that Star Wars adopts for Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi. The archetype is expressed through several facets of both the relationship and the narrative; I will focus on a select few of these (status, 'the woman', and death) in order to illustrate the ways in which Anakin and Obi-Wan fulfil the archetype or make use of it via subversion. Ultimately the aim of this paper is to prove that Anakin and Obi-Wan do serve as an example of the archetypical hero-companion relationship through comparison to Achilles and Patroclus, and to show via that analysis that this relationship is central to the heroic narrative and why it is so.

Before launching into this comparison, however, it would serve to define a little more clearly the relationship I will be discussing and its place in the Western mythical tradition. The hero-companion relationship might also be referred to as the heroic masculine bond, namely because this relationship is one between two men, one the hero and the other his closest companion. David Halperin gives a lucid definition of the relationship as being “between two, and no more than two, persons... [who are] always male; they form not only a pair, but a relatively isolated pair.” **2** The other major necessary quality of these partnerships is that both men are warriors, and very frequently generals, kings, or both, particularly the hero himself. Examples of this relationship proliferate in classical literature and have been received and adapted in later literary and mythical tradition. Halperin's examples are Achilles and Patroclus, Gilgamesh and Enkidu (of the Epic of Gilgamesh), and David and Jonathan (of the Book of Samuel). These are certainly the founders of the archetype; I would also assert that both Ajax and Teucer (also of the Iliad and of Sophocles's Ajax) and Alexander the Great and Hephaistion fit the archetype, the latter due partially to real historical symmetry and partially to literary sensibility on the part of the classical historians who recorded the life of Alexander. All of these partnerships exhibit the two necessary characteristics mentioned above, and many of them are central to their narrative in the way that I will discuss below, partly because they are, of course, the protagonists, but also because of the nature of this bond and its effect on the men involved, and through them on the narrative as a whole.

There are also two potential markers of the archetype that are not strictly qualities which are necessary to fit the definition, but can be used as secondary identifiers. The first is shared history going back to childhood. Commonly the hero and his companion have an intense mutual backstory; often, they grew up together. This is the case for Achilles and Patroclus, Ajax and Teucer, and Alexander and Hephaistion, for example; Ajax and Teucer are half-brothers, while Achilles and Patroclus and Alexander and Hephaistion were prince-and-comrade in their youths, the comrade a foster of the king (the prince's father, that is). Anakin and Obi-Wan, too, have history together, though Obi-Wan is far enough Anakin's senior that they did not grow up together, per se. Obi-Wan was, however, fairly young (canonical sources give conflicting accounts of his age, but we can reasonably assume he was in his early twenties) when he took Anakin on as his apprentice, and Anakin himself was only nine. They have some ten years of history by the start of Attack of the Clones, and another five years or so at the start of Revenge of the Sith. The second potential marker is the portrayal of the companion as the hero's alter ego or 'second self', often in the form of the companion being sent in the hero's place to accomplish a task. This is marked with Achilles and Patroclus, with Patroclus acting several times in Achilles's stead, including going out on the battlefield in Achilles's armour, literally taking on his appearance and persona. Anakin and Obi-Wan do this as well, to a lesser degree. Obi-Wan is sent to kill General Grievous in Revenge of the Sith, a task which Anakin believes should have been assigned to him. **3** Beyond that, the second self motif is understated in Star Wars, but as mentioned, this is merely a marker and not a necessary attribute.

As to the two true defining qualities, warrior status and exclusive closeness, it is easy to find them in Anakin and Obi-Wan. For one, the Jedi are what could be called warrior-monks, and being Jedi, Anakin and Obi-Wan are certainly warriors. Even beyond that, however, they are exceptional warriors. Both are lauded as skilled fighters by other Jedi, and demonstrate their prowess individually, together against a common foe, and, proving their equality, against one another. **4** As to closeness and isolation, they are positioned by the narrative as singular within the Jedi Order. Their relationship is that of master and apprentice in The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, the first and second films of the trilogy, and thus are necessarily closer to one another than to any other Jedi. Anakin's status as The Chosen One further isolates them, and neither Anakin nor Obi-Wan seem to have other close friendships within the Jedi Order. In fact, lack of emotional attachment is a core tenet of that order, called by Yoda “the shadow of greed,” **5** which makes their isolation externally imposed as well as internally facilitated by their largely exclusive closeness to one another. Anakin does have relationships beyond Obi-Wan, but as the hero he is somewhat entitled to these by the narrative; the most important of these, with Padme Amidala, I will discuss later. On the surface, then, Anakin and Obi-Wan fit the definition of the heroic masculine bond. To prove that they properly fulfil the archetype, however, and to demonstrate the place of that relationship in the narrative, a deeper analysis is required. That analysis will requires close comparison not to the whole range of heroic masculine pairs, but to a single salient example: that of Achilles and Patroclus. 

Both Star Wars (especially Revenge of the Sith) and the Iliad are war narratives, and warfare is the most obvious place to start when discussing the relationship between the hero of the tale and his companion. As mentioned above, status as warriors is intrinsic to the heroic masculine bond, and here I would pair with that status as a leader of warriors – in the Iliad, kingship; in Star Wars, generalship. The hero as king or leader is a common facet of the hero-pattern in general, as pointed out by several myth theorists, including Frazer **6** and Raglan, **7** but I do not intend to speak to why that is; it has been thoroughly analyzed by the theorists I have mentioned, among others. In the Iliad, as mentioned, this leaders takes the form of kingship. Achilles is king in Phthia and leader of the Myrmidons, and while Patroclus is not a king himself, his having been raised as a foster of Achilles's father **8** places him among the nobility, and he is also qualified by his status as Achilles's companion to lead troops as a general. That said, their named status is less important than the fact that on the battlefield they are effectively equals. Achilles is marginally superior to Patroclus by virtue of being superior to everyone, but he considers Patroclus his peer, and evidence supports that in fact, Patroclus is his peer, or close to it. We see Patroclus on the battlefield only once, but during that time he dispatches several Trojan heroes, including Sarpedon, a son of Zeus. **19** He is only successfully taken down by the combined efforts of Eurphorbos, Apollo, and Hector. **10** The last of those is Achilles's fated enemy, and thus Achilles is the only one able to kill Hector, so Patroclus's death at his hands is something of an inevitability. Therefore it should be understood that Patroclus is as close to an equal to Achilles's battlefield prowess as it is possible to be. For Anakin and Obi-Wan, the same deficit of named status exists (though reversed, with Obi-Wan in the superior position) and is equalized by their skill in battle. Obi-Wan is a titled Master Jedi with a place on the Jedi Council, the ruling body of the Order. He was also Anakin's master, with direct control over Anakin's training and guardianship of him in his youth, giving him personal as well as institutional power. However, in Revenge of the Sith Anakin is granted a place on the Jedi Council himself, and though he is not simultaneously granted the title of master, **11** his elevation is significant. It places him on more equal titled footing with Obi-Wan, bringing them to a minor deficit of formalized status more like what Achilles and Patroclus have. But again, as mentioned, this minor deficit is mitigated essentially to nothingness by their equal skill as warriors. They both prove prowess on the battlefield against foes of equal ferocity. Obi-Wan is able to dispatch the fearsome General Grievous, who could be, for the sake of argument, called the Star Wars parallel to Sarpedon. Anakin and Obi-Wan also end up crossing blades directly, and in the end Anakin is actually bested by Obi-Wan; these two are demonstrably warriors of equal power. This equality allows for a closeness in their relationship that brings other aspects of their personalities and talents into the light. Were the hero and companion to be unequal in fighting skill, it is likely that they would fall into a dynamic of protection of one party by the other. As it is, however, there is a give and take, and there the finer details of the roles these two men play in their relationship can emerge.

The hero in both cases is a warrior before all else, and a child of prophecy second. Achilles is constantly praised for his prowess in battle, and in fact the plot of the Iliad hinges on his needing to be on the battlefield in order for the Achaians to win the war. He has a warrior's temperament, fiery and untamed, and when he does return to the battlefield after Patroclus's death he commits without any apparent difficulty an incredible slaughter of the Trojans as he seeks Hector. **12** Achilles is an incomparable warrior, and it is understood that he is the only one able to kill Hector, who is Troy's greatest bulwark against conquest by the Achaians. Including the prophecy I have just mentioned (that is, of Hector's defeat), several prophecies swirl around Achilles, most importantly the one which dictates that he will find his death at Troy. The Iliad foreshadows his death heavily, particularly in events surrounding the death of Patroclus. **13** Achilles is wilful in the face of fate, but it catches up to him in the end. Anakin, too, is a child of prophecy, referred to as the Chosen One. Upon his discovery by Qui-Gon Jinn in The Phantom Menace he is identified as the subject of said prophecy, **14** supposedly fated to destroy the Sith, and it follows him constantly after that. He himself does not speculate on it often, but others use the prophecy as a lens of expectation, and that shapes him as exceptional. To some degree, Anakin in his abilities lives up to that expectation: he is strong with the Force, and he is also "an unstoppable warrior... [called] the Hero With No Fear." **15** His heroic status is backed up by his abilities in combat and on the front lines of the war, leading troops. And, while it does not occurs until many years down the line, Anakin does fulfil his own prophecy, causing the ultimate downfall of the Sith. **16** So it can be said that the hero is an almost incomparable warrior, a known juggernaut on the battlefield, a skilled leader of men in war, and a child of prophecy who is defiant of his fate but is forced to fold to it eventually. In comparison, then, is the companion. Patroclus is a warrior, yes. However, what stands out about him more than his warrior status is that he is a skilled and compassionate healer, **17** and is remembered and beloved for his kindness, **18** not just for his skill in battle. He also has experience of the flaw which Achilles demonstrates and its consequences. Patroclus is no stranger to rage and its deadly outcomes; he ends up in the court of Achilles's father, Peleus initially because he killed another boy in unthinking anger when he was a child. **19** Thomas van Nortwick makes mention of Patroclus as a kind of surrogate for Peleus, who cannot be beside his son at war; **20** this makes a certain amount of sense, since Patroclus gives advice from a place of wisdom, but also is not dominant over Achilles, who is a grown man and independent of his father and everyone else, a king in his own right. Obi-Wan, too, might be called a surrogate father (or older brother) to Anakin, having raised him. His wisdom is a defining characteristic, and he is specifically "respected... for his insight as well as his warrior skill." **21** He acts as something of a foil to Anakin's combative talents, nicknamed The Negotiator, **22** and even when he does fight, he is the master of a form of combat known for its passivity and patient defence. **23** And Obi-Wan, like Patroclus, knows of the dangers which await Anakin should he give in to his flaw. As a Jedi Master, Obi-Wan has been well educated in the threat of the Dark Side and the paths that lead to it. He knows to council Anakin against going down that path, and does so. Thus a contrast emerges between hero and companion: one is a strong personality born to greatness, whose most prominent characteristic is skill in battle, and the other is an older, calmer, and wiser counterpart who is his equal in battle but who is known primarily for a gentler touch. It is important to mention here that it is exactly the martial equality described above that allows the companion to act as an advisor to the hero. Were the hero to be clearly superior, he would have no reason to be obliged to listen to his companion other than out of regard, and as will be discussed shortly, regard is not a guarantee of consideration. However, the equality of status grants a greater stability to the relationship and these roles; it allows the hero-companion bond to function. 

What the function of the hero-companion bond is is relevant to its role within the narrative as a whole, which will be the focus of a discussion to follow. For the time being, it is enough to say that Obi-Wan acts as an adviser to Anakin in the same way that Patroclus acts as an adviser to Achilles: they are each the level-headed equal able to temper the hero's distempered approach. This pairing of roles is incredibly important to the way that the story plays out in both cases, and also in both cases, its breakdown is the turning point.

So what then could cause such a breakdown? The hero-companion bond, as mentioned above, is highly exclusive and intense, and the companion is the only person to whom the hero listens, so what – or, more accurately, who – could cause him to stop listening? In both Star Wars and the Iliad, this person is, indirectly, the woman: Briseis or Padme Amidala. Though the exact nature of this principal female character differs slightly (primarily due to the fact that society no longer broadly accepts the idea of women as chattel), these two women play a similar role in relation to both the hero and his companion, and the hero-and-companion as a unit. In both the Iliad and in Star Wars, the woman is the object of the hero's affections, and his dedication to her draws him away from the values he shares with his companion. Achilles's rage is spurred by the theft of Briseis by Agamemnon, and that rage leads to a rift forming between himself and Patroclus – Patroclus's speech at the beginning of Book 16 of the Iliad makes it clear that he disapproves of Achilles's “ruinous” pride. **24** Patroclus is concerned with the greater good, the fate of all the Achaians, and thus is motivated to make his – ultimately deadly – appeal to Achilles to return to the battlefield, or at least allow Patroclus himself to lead their troops into the fighting. Briseis is a motivator that ignites Achilles's greatest flaws: his anger and his pride. In the same way, Padme's role in the narrative sparks the worst in Anakin. She has marginally more agency as a character, but she is effectively a narrative object in the same way Briseis is, a thing to be threatened to arouse Anakin's anger and fear of loss. Even prior to their marriage (which is forbidden by the Jedi Order and a secret even from Obi-Wan), Anakin is defiant of the principles of the Jedi Order in her defence, such as in Attack of the Clones, when he argues with Obi-Wan over whether to continue their mission or to rescue her. Ultimately only an appeal by Obi-Wan to Padme's principles convinces Anakin; his first appeal, made to their shared Order and ideals, fails. **25** Anakin, like Achilles, at least initially believes in the principles of the culture to which he belongs, principles which his companion represents. The heroes's separation from those principles and therefore from their companion proves in both cases to be the root of tragedy. For the woman, the hero sets aside the greater good or the societal good: for Achilles, this is the survival of the Achaians; for Anakin, it is the survival of the Republic and the Jedi Order. Because the companion advocates for or even represents for these things, the hero therefore is directly setting aside his companion for the woman, making her the catalyst for the breaking of that bond, directly or indirectly. She is, in this way, a function of the narrative used to effect the bond, and through the bond the result of the narrative's events.

The woman, Briseis or Padme, also has a relationship with the companion, which has its own significance, but also is formed largely on the basis of their mutual connection with the hero. This relationship is considerably more overt and developed in Star Wars, probably because Obi-Wan and Padme appear much more substantially than either of Patroclus or Briseis, particularly the latter, but the latter pair do have a referenced relationship. In the Iliad we see most of this after Patroclus's death, where Briseis makes her speech mourning him. She speaks of him comforting her after she was taken, and his promises to see to her future at Achilles's side. **26** She also attests to his character as “gentle,” **27** and seems to have had affection for him. It is also important to note that in making this speech Briseis is inheriting what would usually be the position of Patroclus's wife, mother, or sister, in the way that Andromache, Hecuba, and Helen speak at Hector's funeral in Book 24 – but he has none of those. **28** She is his only significant female relation, and their connection hinges on their mutual relation to Achilles. They are each alone but for their love for the hero, and that shared love creates a connection between them. Similarly, Padme's friendship with Obi-Wan is largely predicated on their mutual relation to Anakin. The scenes in which they appear together inevitably involve either him in person or discussion of him, particularly discussion of each of their relationships with him. The most poignant of these scenes comes in the middle of Revenge of the Sith, and unfortunately in large part does not make it into the film. The novelization, however, makes it clear that Obi-Wan is well aware of Anakin and Padme's secret relationship, and while he doesn't speak of approving or not approving, he promises not to turn them in to the Jedi Council, compromising his own morals and ethics on their behalf. At the end of the scene, as Obi-Wan walks away, Padme says, “You love him, too, don't you?” and Obi-Wan does not deny it; the narrative then points out that he “[looks] very alone.” **29** As with Briseis for Patroclus, Padme is Obi-Wan's only significant female relation, and is also the only person capable of remarking on the depth of Obi-Wan's regard for Anakin. She is also the only person capable of identifying with that isolating exclusivity of love for the hero. The companion and the woman cannot be each other's most important relationship, of course; the woman belongs – literally in the case of Briseis – first and foremost to the hero. But they occupy parallel positions in relation to the hero, isolated by love for an exceptional person and therefore able to identify with one another and provide solidarity. This does not deproblematize the fact of the woman's interference in the hero-companion bond, but it does create another echo of the Iliad's relationship archetype in Star Wars. Obi-Wan and Padme have a similar structure of relationship as Patroclus and Briseis do, and both of those relationships are not so much independent relationships as they are a result of the isolating nature of the companion's bond to the hero. 

In fact, the companion's entire life is effectively defined by his bond to the hero, right up to the moment of his death, and it is death on which the heroic narrative hinges for both Achilles and Patroclus, and Anakin and Obi-Wan. Both heroes, it could be said, kill their companions. When Patroclus dies, it is because he has been sent to the battlefield by Achilles, in Achilles's place. And, had Achilles given up his pride and rejoined the battle himself Patroclus might not have been in a position to be killed by Hector, or Achilles might have been there to protect him from that fate. Not to say that such supposition has any real substance, but it is easy to see where Achilles's actions and his flaws lead directly to the death of Patroclus. In Star Wars, this is event more direct: Obi-Wan is in fact killed at Anakin's own hand many years after the initial breakdown of their bond. **30** However, he also suffers a death of sorts when he is forced to kill his best friend and then go into hiding due to the rise of the Empire, both of which are direct results of Anakin's actions. Whoever Obi-Wan Kenobi was before his confrontation with Anakin on Mustafar, he is changed forever afterwards; in that battle, he suffers a death of spirit. This 'death' and of course his actual death are inarguably Anakin's fault. This killing of the companion by the hero is an intense subversion of what the long-term fate of hero and companion would be in the ideal scenario, or even what would be expected one given the nature of the relationship. In the Iliad, this ideal outcome is expressed by Achilles in a fantasy he describes to Patroclus, where they alone are the surviving heroes of the Trojan War and sack Troy together, uncontested and not required to share their glory. **31** In Star Wars, a grimmer but somewhat similar sentiment is expressed by Obi-Wan: in the novelization, Obi-Wan realizes (in a moment of what turns out to be bitter irony) that he had always expected that when he died, Anakin would be with him. **32** The characters themselves make it clear that the hero and his companion are bound forever, even unto death. 

Achilles and Patroclus establish a pattern in which the companion dies, and as a result the hero is driven to insane grief. Star Wars subverts this – the hero is the first to die. Like Obi-Wan, Anakin suffers a death of self (a spiritual suicide of sorts) when he gives in to the Dark Side, which is then cemented when Obi-Wan leaves him to burn to death on Mustafar after their duel; Anakin Skywalker effectively dies there, and Darth Vader rises from the literal ashes. **33** This subversion is one of the most marked departures from Achilles and Patroclus's version of the archetype, but it's not an unknown subversion. The heroic narrative and the hero-companion bond exist primarily in the epic tradition. However, when authors are seeking to take this bond and turn it to the tragic, it happens something like this: the hero, manipulated by outside forces and separated from his companion, loses his sanity, goes on a murderous rampage, ignores the pleas of his lover and then kills himself, condemning his companion to exile. These are the events of Sophocles's Ajax, **34** and they are also the events of Revenge of the Sith. Ajax and Teucer, like Achilles and Patroclus and Anakin and Obi-Wan, are an example of the hero-companion bond; they fight together, they have an intense friendship (brotherhood, in their case), and they are fiercely codependent. The breaking of their bond, also as with Achilles and Patroclus and Anakin and Obi-Wan, has disastrous consequences. Thus I would assert that while in this particular aspect Anakin and Obi-Wan do not directly follow Achilles and Patroclus, the subversion is both purposeful and precedented. This is an established potential future of this relationship in a world where the bond is broken not by the companion's death at the hand of a third party but by an irreparable breach in their bond created by the hero himself. In this way, Anakin and Obi-Wan still fit the archetype, despite the difference in the way the relationship is terminated.

So then, what does this all mean for the significance of the hero-companion relationship to the narrative as a whole? I have mentioned the narrative several times in references left without discussion so as allow for a deeper discussion now that the whole of my evidence has been presented. First, let us return to status and roles. The most salient points in that aspect are that the hero and his companion are warriors at the forefront of a war narrative, that they are equals, and that the companion acts as an adviser and a mitigating influence on the hero's flaws. The first thing, their place as warriors in war, is what puts the hero and his companion at the centre of the story. Violence has always been prominent in the western mythical tradition, and war is a common setting for epic; it makes sense in the context of broader western culture and the tradition as a whole that the hero would be a fighter, and to qualify for heroic status, an exceptional fighter. His companion, as his necessary equal, must therefore also fight. Their equal status, granted by their abilities on the battlefield, enables the third aspect: that the hero listens to the companion's council and respects it. The companion, both Patroclus and Obi-Wan, stands for a sort of greater good, representing the needs of the society and culture to which both he and the hero belong. He is able to advocate for this greater good to his intractable heroic counterpart, whose concerns are more selfish and prideful. He is also able to speak from a place of wisdom with regard to the flaw to which the hero will eventually fall prey, in hopes of saving the hero from tragic consequences. In this way, the bond has a stabilizing effect on both the hero. Because the hero is the protagonist, this stabilization extends from him into the rest of the narrative. While the bond is functioning, things exist at a positive status quo, and tragedy is prevented.

Then comes the disruption. I discussed the woman from two aspects: as a narrative object which motivates the hero, causing him to fall into his flaws; and as a figure who highlights the essential isolation of the companion from everyone but the hero due to her own isolation from everyone but the hero. The latter does not serve the narrative so much as it serves the establishment of the hero-companion relationship and its nature. It is still important, of course, in terms of understanding the bond that exists between hero and companion, but for the purposes of understanding that bond's effect on the narrative, I will set it aside as proven. The former aspect, however, is incredibly important. The woman's place as catalyst for the hero's flaws is a driver for the entire narrative. Because her influence (or more accurately, the influence of the hero's emotions about her) is strong enough to interfere with the stability of his bond with his companion, events begin to unravel. The hero, motivated by what the woman stirs up in him, turns away from the principles that the companion represents and advocates for, and from the companion himself. Without the wisdom of the companion, the hero acts according to his worse nature, and the narrative turns. What we might call the reversal of the hero comes here, as a result of the influence of the woman. (I would like to mention here that she, as a character, cannot be blamed for this; she is a tool of the narrative progression and does not direct the hero onto the path he takes herself.) Achilles's fall to wrath and to pride due to the theft of Briseis drives a wedge between him and Patroclus, causing the separation both physical and ethical that eventually leads to Achilles giving the order that ends in Patroclus's death. Anakin's fall to his fear of loss and to his pride due to the threat to Padme lead him to insanity, the destruction of everything Obi-Wan cares for, and his ultimate attempt to end Obi-Wan's life.

And that is the crux of it: in my discussion of death, I touched on the idea that the place where the epic becomes tragic is the same as the place where the hero-companion bond dissolves. When the companion dies or the hero betrays the companion (or both), that is the end. Achilles's fate is decided when Patroclus dies. Anakin's is decided when he turns on Obi-Wan. Neither hero can survive in any substantial manner the loss of their companion. The descent of the relationship from its strongest form into a breakdown of communication into a final, terminal episode mirrors the tension of the narrative as it ratchets up through more and more tragic events until finally the climax comes and everything is lost. The killing of Hector by Achilles is a direct result of the death of Patroclus, and the death of Patroclus is both a result and a symbol of the dissolution of their relationship, and Book 22 of the Iliad in which Hektor dies acts as both the climax of the Iliad and the event that seals Achilles's destiny. The battle on Mustafar which destroys Obi-Wan's spirit and ends the relationship between him and Anakin once and for all is, in the same way, caused by their divergence, and is also the climax of both Revenge of the Sith and the prequel trilogy as a whole. It is also the death, essentially, of Anakin Skywalker, and cements him onto the path he walks as Darth Vader – no longer the triumphant hero but a caricature of evil. The heroic masculine bond is the central relationship in this heroic narrative, and its state both reflects and affects the events and the state of affairs for the entire narrative.

In much the same way as the hero-companion relationship is central to the heroic narrative, the heroic narrative has ever been central to the Western mythical tradition. Star Wars is only one of the latest in a long line of stories that demonstrate a reception of this story, and I think it proves that the archetypical heroic masculine bond as a facet of the heroic narrative is still alive and well. The Prequel Trilogy is, ultimately, a chronicle of the relationship between Anakin and Obi-Wan, and a tragedy of that relationship. It serves as a tragedy of many other things, too, but this relationship is defining and deeply influential on all else that takes place in the narrative, in the same way that the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus is defining of the most major events of the Iliad. Among all the layers of storytelling in both of these epics, the tale of this relationship between the hero and his "most loved companion", to quote Homer, stands out as both dominant and poignant. It could be said, perhaps, that there is a lesson in the fate of this relationship: that one should speak openly with those who love you and are most loyal to you, perhaps; or that our bonds anchor us, keep us steady, and that without them we are lost. Perhaps the takeaway is that a volatile personality needs a steadying influence, and the epic hero is certainly a volatile personality, singular and independent. Or perhaps the takeaway should be that after two thousand years of reading and rereading the heroic epic, in the wake of a vast tradition which has discarded or transformed many aspects of the myth, the connection between the hero and his companion is one that is so powerful, both emotionally and in the effect it has on the tale being told, that storytellers cannot leave it aside.


	2. Footnotes

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> My footnotes from the paper, in edited form + some commentary from me. They were in Good Chicago Formatting originally but I figured y'all wouldn't give a shit. Feel free to make reference to the bibliography in the next chapter for full titles and publication details if you want to read something for yourself.
> 
> For those who may not know "Ibid." means "the same as above", pretty much.
> 
> The Iliad translation I was using was a prose translation with no fucking line number references, so I'm sorry about that. If you're curious as to which book/line a reference is to, just ask and I'll find it for you.

**1** Jon Solomon gives an excellent overview of direct reception of the Iliad throughout history and the ways its story and characters have been used. 

**2** Halperin, 77. **Julia says:** Halperin's book is a very interesting read on the history of homosexuality, including in literature! Not too heavy.

**3** Revenge of the Sith, film.

**4** Ibid.

**5** Stover, "Revenge of the Sith", 767. **Julia says:** I chose to use the novelizations for a lot of specific quotes and references for the sake of having something concrete to point to in the paper rather than "this happened in the movie at some point", as well as the fact that it includes a lot more clear details of characterization than the film; less dependent on interpretation. Plus it was fun to read and I wanted to use it. The page numbers are a bit fucked though because I was using an omnibus edition of all three novels of the trilogy.

**6** Frazer. **Julia says:** Frazer's theories are... iffy at best. But I needed to make it clear to my prof that I was going to make _some_ sort of reference to the coursework, lmao, and we studied him.

**7** Raglan. **Julia says:** Fuck Raglan. Fuck him so much. He's a shitty old racist dude. Don't read his book, it'll just make you mad. See above: I just needed something to reference.

**8** Homer, The Iliad, trans. Martin Hammond, 367.

**9** Ibid., 265.

**10** Ibid., 274.

**11** RotS, film.

**12** Iliad, bks. 20-21.

**13** Dué, 235-237.

**14** The Phantom Menace, film.

**15** Stover, "RotS," 618.

**16** Return of the Jedi, film.

**17** Iliad, 187.

**18** Ibid., 318.

**19** Ibid., 367.

**20** Van Nortwick, 51.

**21** Stover, "RotS," 613.

**22** RotS, film.

**23** Stover, "RotS," 872.

**24** Iliad, 254. 

**25** Attack of the Clones, film.

**26** Iliad, 318.

**27** Ibid.

**28** Skinner, 268.

**29** Stover, "RotS," 816.

**30** A New Hope, film.

**31** Iliad, 255.

**32** Stover, "RotS," 852.

**33** The narrator's voice in the novelization first refers to Anakin as Darth Vader shortly before his duel with Obi-Wan in a context that implies that Anakin and Vader are not the same person. See Stover, "Revenge of the Sith", 943.

**34** Sophocles, Ajax, trans. Herbert Golder and Richard Pevear.


	3. Bibliography

Dué, Casey. "Learning Lessons from the Trojan War: Briseis and the Theme of Force." College Literature 34, no. 2 (2007): 229-62.

Frazer, Sir James. _The Golden Bow_. New York: Macmillan, 1951.

Halperin, David M. _One Hundred Years of Homosexuality_. New York: Routledge, 1990.

Homer. _The Iliad _. Translated by Martin Hammond. London: Penguin Books, 1987.__

__Lucas, George, dir. _A New Hope_. 1977; San Francisco, CA: Lucasfilm Ltd._ _

__Lucas, George, dir. _Attack of the Clones_. 2002; San Francisco, CA: Lucasfilm Ltd._ _

__Lucas, George, dir. _The Phantom Menace_. 1999; San Francisco, CA: Lucasfilm Ltd._ _

__Lucas, George, dir. _Revenge of the Sith_. 2005; San Francisco, CA: Lucasfilm Ltd._ _

__Marquand, Richard, dir. _Return of the Jedi_. 1983; San Francisco, CA: Lucasfilm Ltd._ _

__Lord Raglan. _The Hero_. New York: Vintage Books, 1956._ _

__Skinner, Marilyn B. "Briseis, the Trojan Women, and Erinna." The Classical World 75, no. 5 (1982): 265-69._ _

__Solomon, Jon. "The Vacillations of the Trojan Myth: Popularization & Classicization, Variation & Codification." International Journal of the Classical Tradition 14, no. 3/4 (2007): 482-534._ _

__Sophocles. _Ajax_. Translated by Herbert Golder and Richard Pevear. In The Complete Sophocles Volume II, edited by Peter Burian and Al Shapiro. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009._ _

__Stover, Matthew. "Revenge of the Sith." In Star Wars: The Prequel Trilogy. New York: Del Rey, 2011._ _

__Van Nortwick, Thomas. _Somewhere I Have Never Travelled_. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996._ _


End file.
